tv [untitled] November 16, 2011 10:30am-11:00am PST
of funding at this rate. the department has decided where this is most useful. we have a lot of community and agency partners right now. we would really like to be making more collected determinations where and how this practice is most useful in solving the board as well. i would appreciate your support. -- how this is most useful in solving the board as well. >> why don't we open this up for public comment? is anyone that like to speak on item number five? >> good morning, i would like to speak in favor of this resolution. i would like to thank the sponsors for bringing this forward. after working for the department
of public health, i am a firm believer that every dollar is necessary to run this department adequately. hopefully, all of this money is not going to be wasted on inefficiencies and other explanations. in my opinion, barbara garcia is doing a good job and in a certain sense, i don't think too many people have missed dr. katz recently. in summary, i think that this is a good resolution. i think that they're doing a good job. thank you. >> thank you.
>are there other members of the public that wish to speak on item number 5? we have a motion to move forward with recommendation and a second and we will do that without objection. item number six please. >> item number six, ordinance approved in the second amendment to the contact between the city and county of san francisco and at the united states, through the department of energy western area power administration, for delivery of low-cost power and scheduling coordinator services to treasure island and the yerba buena island. >> we bring to you today the second amendment to our existing contract with the western area power administration for
providing full load services to treasure island. the treasury currently provide services to treasure island and yerba buena island. the puc entered into an agreement with the department of energy for the delivery of clean low-cost federal power. this provides an allocation of electricity from two federal projects and it provides a clean power to treasure island. in the event that this is not sufficient from these projects come on the puc entered in 2005 into a full load service contract with western area power administration. that contract went through 2010
and it was amended in 2007 to extend it from 2010 until 2015. this would extend the contract from 2015 through october of 2020. >> does that complete your presentation? >> if you would like, i can go over the details in the budget analyst report. >> please. >> so, the time we are looking at is from 2015 through 2020. in order to do that, i looked at
the existing electricity usage and treasurer of lynde which is much less than what was projected in 2015. this existing news goes to about 17,000-18,000 megawatt hours and that is because of the existing residential which is on the island which is about 2000 people and the facilities that are there today. we have taken into account the projected load that has been provided by the community development and the development project that is scheduled to happen. the way we figured it was that it got the total projected load and then subtracted from that the historical amount of based
resourced energy that has been provided by the power administration and we subtract that from the projected load to get to the supplemental power that we would need for this contract. the base contract provides the base resourced energy and a the contract that we are presenting today for amendment provides for the supplemental energy, energy to meet the demand on the island. in the future time frame, we have calculated that there is going to be a need for additional supplemental energy because of the growth that is anticipated and that is what is reflected on the report. we are asking for an increase in the contract amount that is
reflected in the report to be 9,643,000 based on the projected energy that will be consumed at that time. the way we got to that number was that we looked at the forward price curbs on the market that would probably be the cost of the power that western would have to procure. >> in terms of base electricity,
if the demand exceeds what we have the capacity provides, we go to another source for additional power. is that the way that this contract works? >> currently, there is no power that is delivered to treasure island through another entity, this is through wapa. >> the budget analyst reports on this but we did not seek a competitive process for the additional power and the reason was -- >> the reason for doing that was that we don't have the infrastructure that goes to treasure island that the city owns. that is the first one. there was an existing contract that we inherited from the navy
>> why don't we go to the budget analyst report? >> madame chair and members of the committee, in that last point based on our understanding, based on what we're hearing is that this was on a sole source basis which was approved by the board of supervisors and this would continue on a sole source basis. i would add that the cost of this is going up significantly for the supplemental power, about 200% but this is because
of the development of treasure island, so this makes sense. the total cost under the agreement including the proposed five-year extension, this would be from the term from september 1, 2005 through september 30th, 2020 for a total of 15 years, the estimated cost is 550 million. this is 2 million more than the currently estimated amount. for that reason, we are recommending that you amend the ordinance to provide the updated estimate of 15,000,950. we recommend that you approve the ordinance. >> for my understanding, the
department does agree with these recommendations, correct? >> that is correct. >> are there members of the public that wish to speak on this item, item number six? seeing none, this item is closed. >> i think that this helps to clear up a number of my questions. with the litigation that is going on with the eir and d.c. court appeal and a number of financing issues -- and the ceqa appeal, there's the possibility that this will not happen for five years. what will happen if there is not a need for additional electric there? >> the contract as it stands is an as needed contract. this allows us to contract for
going up to the market and providing additional power if we need this. the way we handle this on a provisional basis is that we give them a yearly forecast of what we will be needing for that year and that is what they go out the market and try to have the low projections that we provide them. should there be a change, that would be provided in our forecast to them. the other thing that is important to note is all the costs that have been presented are recoverable by the rates that we charge to the customers at treasure island. there is little risk to the city in terms of cost. there is no minimum requirement for us to purchase any of the
energy, which is the other thing that is good about the contract. >> thank you. >> the expiration date is 2015, isn't it? >> the existing contract, yes. "so, we had passed an ordinance about five years ago that said that once the agreement expired, areas that will then come under the jurisdiction of the city and county of san francisco and this was once a military area becomes a public power designated area and that is our first right of refusal based on the ordinance that the board of supervisors passed. i did not hear you mention that. >> you are correct. the city administrative code requires that an analysis be
performed. we are working with the development team in preparing. >> my colleagues here were not on the board of supervisors at the time. this was a robust discussion back then. we wanted to make sure that as areas such as hunters point through its redevelopment conversion of the former naval base into the city and county jurisdiction and treasure island
that these become public power first right of refusal by the city so it does not come under the jurisdiction of pg%e. i want to make sure that that is attacked to this -- attached to this discussion. this makes complete sense to me but i'm hoping that there is a departure point from our moving into our own municipal-it ministered program, and that is what my expectation is in this discussion. >> thank you, supervisor. we are doing very exciting things with public power. earlier this year, we adopted
our first rate for the hunters point shipyard. because of our efficient system, we were able to offer rates through public power that are 10% cheaper than pg&e's rates. that is an example where the commission did take that directive to heart and we are indeed considering that for a treasure island. >> this is not something that you should be shy about. this conversation is almost a perfect candidate explaining how you have a self-contained area and it pre existed on an energy contract, then you can maintain that level of separation by its then converting into a municipal public power contract. >> we are indeed looking at that. >> if there are no other
questions before us, this item is before us. colleagues, can we take the budget analyst recommendations without objection? we will do that. because there is a change of the not to exceed amount, this would require a continuance. if we can continue this to our next meeting which will not be this coming meeting but wednesday, november 30th. thank-you. ok, item number seven. >> item number7, resolution authorizing the general manager of the san francisco puc to execute the first amendment to the memorandum of understanding with the alameda county resource conservation district for an amount not to exceed 775,000 and with a total duration of 14 years. >> thank you very much for this item. we have with us a representative from the puc water enterprise.
>> i have been here now for just over six years. one of the things that was made apparent to me was the significance of the alameda creek watershed to our organization. my group manages primarily the resources outside of the city and county boundaries including the watershed. it was almost three years ago that we took our first mou to our commission for approval. we did that for a couple of reasons. i want to highlight those because they are both relevant. first and foremost, what it shows in green is the land that the city owns.
a lot of the watershed is in santa clara county. our county approached a sister agency in santa clara county and they agreed that we should work with just the one and they would provide out reach. we have been doing this now for just over three years. as a consequence, they provide a really unique opportunity to work directly with contractors and agencies to implement the project. the first was to provide outreach up to the top of the watershed and to contact the private land owners and talk about easements. the goal is to not make all of this green. we just want to see it protected. we have been very busy for the
past five and a half years and that has cleared all of our environmental permitting hurdles but we continue to protect the resources in this watershed. when it became clear to us that the mitigation requirements would extend both in time and increase the dollar amount come we knew we had to take this back to our commission. greenough that our permit conditions drove the date and the amendment. -- we know that our permit conditions drove the date. >> what would this go towards? >> sure.
this is broken up in the budget analyst report the proposed increase for $363,000 is directly associated with the mitigation requirement. i'm happy to go into that it is helpful. these are things that we have committed to for the implementation of our construction projects. the $412,000 would continue the upper watershed. this would be narrowly focused working in coordination with our staff and other statements in the watershed to continue to meet the small groups and talk about different opportunities to protect the resources. at the same meaning that our hurt this year, there was a
separate agreement that did not require any funding but it does describe our intent and that was the alameda creek partnership which include a conservancy, the land trust, and our staff. this has taken longer to get traction with the private landowners and i am happy to relay that one of the things that we tried to highlight was the recent acquisition and we just purchased the property this year and there is another one coming right behind it. there was a process and we went right through it and it made sense for up to manage the site as though it was not contiguous with the rest of our watershed land. the additional funding is to continue that funding through time said that we can have a contract that we need to continue to out reached.
>> with the we go to the budget analyst report? >> the additional requested authorization includes 575,000 of funds previously appropriated by the board of supervisor. the additional $200,000 would be from future water enterprise revenues which were subject to annual appropriation. >> thank you. why don't we open this up for private comment -- public comment? public comment is closed. we have a motion to send item 7 forward with recommendations and we will do that with recommendations. thank you. can you call item number 8 and 9? >> item number8, resolution
approving the issuance of not to exceed $8,291,000 aggregate principal amount of qualified energy conservation bonds to be issued by the public until this commission of the city and county of san francisco. item number9, resolution approving the issuance of not to exceed $6,600,000 aggregate principal amount of the new clean renewable energy bonds to be issued by the public utilities commission of the city and county of san francisco. >> we have been before you a couple of times over the past years as we sold debt. before you today is a continuation of what we have found to be the lowest costs available of borrowing that will insure savings for our ratepayers. there are two items before you.
on item 8 and nine, the total request and approval to issue from your committee and the board of supervisors is a total of $14.9 million. one is a qualified energy bond of $8.3 million. the second is a $6.6 million clean renewable funding. both of these main that the lowest cost of borrowing that we can get right now which provides 70% interest subsidies. the term is 16 years. what this means is that we estimate between 1%-2% to be the annual cost. this is funding very important projects for the city and county. the bonds will fund the green components of the new headquarters building which puc is nearly complete in its construction. solar power, wind power, the
treatment plants, also the solar controls and the state of the art, a heating, ventilation. the clean renewal energy bond funding is something important to the generation here in san francisco. the first project is a very exciting project. the water is going through the pipelines. the speed of that is making hydro electric energy. city hall will be having new solar panels on the south side. of the total is $6.6 million low-cost borrowing in order to fund those key projects for the city. the vendor has been selected through a competitive process
and we set out a request for proposals to 20 firms. we selected bank of america because they were the lowest cost firm. we had the most experience in dealing with the renewable energy bonds. they worked with us in 2008 when we issued our power bonds. the two items before you today relate to power, specifically anticipated sale later this year as well as more next year. we will be coming back before you sometime in may to visit about water revenue bonds for our planned issues and also we will be looking at our waste water enterprises well to keep on track with our capital improvements in waste-water. before